X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f From: Rod Pemberton Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: DOSBox? Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 05:02:47 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 149 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: ZTD62cW/Uw8bymX5ok+0NA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse AT aioe DOT org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Bytes: 7620 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 19:23:28 -0400 DJ Delorie wrote: > Rod Pemberton writes: > > Bottom posting is standard Usenet etiquette. > > First off, it's not bottom posting, it's threaded posting, like I'm > doing. Bottom posting is discouraged as it makes the user page > through reams of quoted message before getting to anything new. Trim > and inline is the norm - context, not copy. > Apparently, you can't read, nor comprehend. I quoted the RFC for you which plainly says otherwise. You're making up rules which don't exist except in your own mind. I don't know why you've chosen to intentionally incite an argument over this, when you're blatantly wrong and even knew you were wrong before you replied. I don't understand why you're continuing to argue once you were publicly proven wrong. Ego? Masochism? What is wrong with you? Seriously. When you're wrong, stay quiet or apologize. > > Please don't attempt to tell any further lies > > I object to your insults, and I was not lying. I objected to you lying. If you take that as an insult when you clearly did not tell the truth, as was proven by the RFC quote, that's on you and your psychologist. If you didn't realize you were lying, then you should've apologized once you were corrected. E.g., "I'm sorry. I didn't mean to lie. I thought I was telling the truth, but clearly I was wrong. I've never heard of that RFC before." Not difficult. That's what mature people do. Are you immature? > I stated that *this* forum is not a dictatorship, and it's not. That's true. But, you also stated that "we" don't tell people how to compose messages. That was a lie. The format is standardized for Usenet. This group is on Usenet. So, "we" do tell people how to properly format messages for Usenet. If you were familiar with any other Usenet group, e.g., going back to the 1980's, as I am, then you'd also know that it is the norm everywhere on Usenet to correct bottom-posted posts when replying to them and inform the OP of the mistake, as I politely did. > Lest you forget, the djgpp newsgroup is gatewayed (and always has > been, as per its charter) to the djgpp mailing list, which means > your assumption that only usenet rules apply is false. No, it means that your bizarre assumption that anything goes in terms of formatting simply because the messages are also distributed to readers on various platforms is blatantly false. > The messages you were replying to did not originate on usenet. True. (Well, I'm assuming that's true ... And, we're in agreement.) So, that was the point. It was posted to Usenet from another service without following Usenet standards by someone who probably didn't even know they were posting to Usenet. This was politely corrected. > > as you know full well that bottom posting to Usenet was > > standardized: > > "Guidelines" are not requirements. I agree that including minimal > context is useful, but that doesn't give me or you the right to force > someone else to obey those guidelines. If that was true, then they wouldn't have gone to the trouble to create a standard, now would they? You're implying that they wasted their time, were stupid to do so, failed to identify in-use rules or norms, and that you're somehow superior to all of them. > And certainly, the djgpp list has long encouraged people to be polite > and civil, not contemptuous and demanding. I was very polite and civil. I flatly stated what was expected and corrected the OP's obvious mistake. How is that not polite and civil? It would've been impolite and uncivil to everyone else on Usenet to allow him to continue posting incorrectly formatted posts without informing him that he was doing so. That's what you're encouraging. There was no smiley, no swearing, no capitals, no exclamation points, i.e., nothing to indicate that I was being rude and uncivil or was angry in any way. The only reason it was uncivil was because you assumed it was and deemed it to be. You took offense to it, even though you were wrong about it. So, from my perspective, your personal interpretation of what I said was completely fouled up and still is. Why you took it hostilely is beyond me. There was nothing there for you to do that. Perhaps, you're actually angry about something else? > Your rules are not everyone's rules. They aren't my rules. They're Usenet's standards. That's what RFC's are. They apply here because this is a Usenet group. Simple. Are you denying that this is a Usenet group? No, of course, you aren't. You're just being willfully blind to the fact that this is a Usenet group. The fact that you happen to also "spam" people through an email relay is utterly irrelevant to his being a Usenet group. > And your demand that the OP bottom post was itself top-posted, Top posting is what the RFC says, as I quoted to you previously: "summarize the original at the top of the message". That's called top-posting. I don't know how that can be any more clear than it is. > which I find amusingly ironic. Anybody can find anything to be amusingly ironic. It doesn't mean that it is. What I find to be amusingly ironic is that you found something that you're wrong about to be amusingly ironic. > You didn't even say "please" either. Neither did you. Since my statement was polite, it wasn't needed either. Who is being demanding now? You. > And you didn't trim the quoted text. That's not required. That's optional. See the RFC where it says "or". So, why are you making up rules? That's two rules now that nobody knows since they aren't standard but were made up by you. > And your signature block is two lines longer than the customary four. "Two lines longer than the customary four" would be six lines ... I'd like to criticize you on that wrongheadedness, but I seriously can't tell if that was that an accidental typo or a counting mistake or perhaps due to vision loss. You'll need to clarify as to why you think there are so many lines in my signature. The standard Usenet line length is 72 chars per line. The Usenet "signature block" starts /after/ the line with two dashes and space. It looks like, maybe 3.5 lines. You can count the characters, if you wish. The "signature block" starts with "If you're ...", in case you failed to recognize that a Usenet "signature block" has absolutely nothing to do with a person's name. Rod Pemberton -- If you're upset over excessive use of force by police, leave your basketball court or football field, go down to your police station and picket. You can do that peacefully any day of the week without disrespecting the American flag.